Breaking down the somewhat complicated Thunder roster situation

Per NBA rules, teams can have 12 players on its active roster, meaning 12 guys that are dressed and ready to play. You can have up to 15 players on the team, as that’s a provisional for players that are injured, but any man over 12 isn’t allowed to be in uniform and is deemed inactive. This is also known as the Robert Swift Rule (not really, but it should be).

Also, you must have at least one player on your inactive list and any player sent to your D-League affiliate counts toward your inactive players. The active and inactive list can be set on a game-by-game basis, one hour before tip-off, with no length of stay required for either list. If, for example, a star player is injured and forced to sit out one or two games, the coach can place him on the inactive list and “activate” another player, giving the team a full 12 players available to play. Really not all that complicated. That is, until you get to the Thunder roster.

Those guys will be on the active roster without any doubt, barring a buyout or trade. So with three spots remaining on the active roster and six guys still out there, who gets what and who’s going where?

Shaun Livingston – 99 percent chance to be on the active roster
A virtual lock to be on the opening night active roster. With Earl Watson being bought out, the Thunder’s down to two point guards – Westbrook and Atkins. And Atkins probably isn’t going to be with the team much longer one would think. Livingston looked great during the summer leagues and with his height and length, he can play three positions and give OKC that versatility it loves.

D.J. White – 85 percent
White was probably the most consistent player in the summer leagues and he gives OKC some nice frontcourt depth. He only played in seven games last year, but was productive in all of them. He’s a nice player that won’t ever blow you away, but is always a candidate for 15 points on 6-8 shooting and seven rebounds. He’s a great pick and pop guy off the bench and he’s even got a post move or two. He’s the ideal bench big man and I think he’s a pretty valuable piece. The only thing that could hold him back is if he’s still not totally healthy or still hasn’t added the extra weight desired by the coaching staff.

Kyle Weaver – 80 percent
Weaver played in 56 games last year with the Thunder and saw a ton of time this summer at point guard. I think Thunder management has ideas of Weaver being the third point man on this team and also sliding into the 2-guard and small forward positions when needed. That’s why players like Weaver are so darn valuable – instead of having three guys to play those spots, you just need one. Basically the entire Thunder roster is built this way which gives so much breathing room to Scott Brooks. Weaver is a solid defender that’s worth keeping around. Maybe OKC’s staff decides he’d be better of in Tulsa refining his point guard skills. But as it stands now, I think he’ll be on the active roster come opening night.

Serge Ibaka – 50 percent
Last Monday, I would have put this chance at around 75-80 percent. But a poor Vegas showcased a lot of Ibaka’s weaknesses and things he needs to improve on. He’s weak on the glass. He’s not a great help defender. His offensive game looks NBA ready, but sometimes he can kind of get lost in the flow of the game. Oh, and he’s weak on the glass. Did I already say that? At 6-foot-10, OKC needs Ibaka to be a rebounding big that can score and defend. And I think he will absolutely be this. But not yet. Keep in mind, he’s just 19 years old. And the amount of polish and skill he showed these last two weeks is extremely encouraging. But just not yet. I think he’ll see time on the big club this year, but unless he makes a good jump (which I think he’s capable of) I don’t think he’ll find a permanent spot.

Byron Mullens – 40 percent
I actually could see Mullens making the active roster, just because center is where OKC lacks depth the most. Behind Nenad Krstic, there’s technically no one. Maybe the Thunder decides Ibaka could play the 5, but since Mullens is 7’2″ and all, even if he doesn’t like it he’s going to play some center. I think he’d rather be with Oklahoma City playing center than in the D-League playing where he wants. And if not, then I’d question his brain. But as it stands, he’s not ready. He’s a total project and has a lot to work on. He’ll see some minutes, but I doubt he’ll be active from the get-go. But again, he does add depth to the only position that lacks it, so you never know.

Robert Vaden – 30 percent
He didn’t do what he wanted to do and he didn’t do what OKC was hoping he’d do the last two weeks. He shot the ball poorly outside of one nice game where he hit 4 of 5 from three. He’s got potential to be a 3-point specialist, but the Thunder’s got so many guys at guard that it’s hard to make room for him. I thought it was basically a competition between Vaden and Weaver for that last guard spot this summer and Weaver out-played Darth and that’s not saying a ton.

The next question is, should the Thunder just stick all six on the 15-man roster and have three sit in their Hugo Boss’s? What would seem like a nice idea is the three that aren’t put on the active roster would be placed on the inactive list and sent to OKC’s D-League affiliate. And as is the advantage of having your affiliate just two hours up the road, the Thunder would be able to call and recall the players if needed or if substantial progress has been shown. But there’s a problem with that – you can only assign two players to your D-League affiliate off your NBA roster. So something’s got to be done it seems.

Remember though, the NBA requires one player to be put on the inactive list and the team has to carry 13 players. So with one guy being designated to sit and look good in his suit, that would leave just two players left, which is exactly the number of players that are allowed to be in the D-League from the Thunder’s roster. Presti-chango! Maybe that was the plan in buying out Earl Watson was to create that one extra spot as needed. Or maybe I’m completely wrong and none of this matters one bit.

But who would benefit more from sitting and not playing with the big club rather than actually playing in Tulsa or somewhere else. Who’s the best candidate for the coveted Robert Swift Position? I think Ibaka fits the bill. He’s close to be ready for real NBA action and I think if say, Nick Collison were hurt, Chewie could step in and fill that spot. Mullens would be just fine for this spot too, but I think the organization has higher hopes for Ibaka. Vaden, well, nah.

And what about DeVon Hardin? He played a few nice games in Vegas and could maybe contribute in the future. He could be a candidate for the inactive spot. But he doesn’t look ready at all right now. So with OKC allowed just two spots in Tulsa, it would seem like using one on Hardin wouldn’t make a bunch of sense, especially when he can easily go back to Europe and play next year. But again, the center position is lacking, so maybe (albeit unlikely) there’s a chance he makes the active roster. If I were setting a number on him, I’d put it at 10 percent. But heck, as hard as I try, I have no idea what Sam Presti is thinking.

This all gets much easier if two dead weights can get dropped. I’m guessing, but I bet Sam Presti is working on buying out Chucky Atkins (whose clause is under a million) and maybe even Damien Wilkins. That’s two coveted active roster spots opened up and two slots that could be filled by guys that are ready to contribute. That’s why Watson was bought out and not traded. When you really look at OKC’s roster situation, you can see there’s a bit of a disconnect between the youth movement and the old guys clogging things up. So if there’s not a lot of value in guys like Atkins and Wilkins and the return isn’t worth the free roster spot, then just buy them out and make room for some young players. That’s what I anticipate happening at least.

And don’t forget the Thunder’s still talking with Desmond Mason about staying. So if OKC signs him, that means there’s just two open active roster slots and things will get shuffled around. Or heck, if the Thunder goes out and gets someone else, it sucks that spot up too. That’s another reason I don’t think Presti was all that concerned with going after guys like Paul Millsap or Marcin Gortat. If you sign someone like that you lock down a roster spot and set back your chance at developing your young talent. And in this case it appears that instead of trying to strike big with the quick fix, Presti defered to development. Which is after all, the Thunder way.

Like Crow pointed out, don't forget that there are two parts to being a point guard and Livingston sucks at one of them (defense). For our starting guards, Westbrook is solid at D and pretty good at O, and Harden is solid at O and pretty good at D, a good pairing. In my opinion, Weaver will be a better PG in a rotation with Harden for overall team performance, and Livingston will be a better PG in a rotation with Thabo. Weaver-Harden also works well because Harden is a pretty solid ball-handler himself and hopefully can make up for Weaver's deficiencies. I think that if we have the roster space, keeping both of these guys is the optimal choice, and it allows Brooks to play around with lineups a lot more. Both guys can play the 3 in a pinch as well.

Then have Mullens, Wilkins, and Chucky be the inactive guys with Mullens playing in the D-League mostly I think.

At that point you travel with Wilkins and Chucky in suits and if you for some reason need to activate Chucky to play some point and make someone like Serge inactive you can. Or if Wilkins has just been lighting it up in practice you could do the same with him. Lastly, if someone isn't performing well, again like possibly Serge just to keep using the same example you could bring up Mullens from the D-League for a game or 2 and send Serge down.

I don't think that's true at all. It's probably more accurate to say that the front office really hopes these guys develop into definite parts of the future, but as of right now, all those guys are second choices off the bench. White has a chance to work his way into a first choice off the bench, but I honestly don't see it this year. Maybe in a year or two (or if we suddenly lose a lot of depth at the 4.) At any rate, those three guys are pretty expendable. I like Weaver and White, but let's not overstate things here.

Gar :You really can’t get much value for a expiring contract in the 6-7 mil range (not this year at least) unless you want Vince Carter, which I for one DON’T.

I think you'll be surprised what could've been done with Earl's contract closer to the trade deadline. Given the shrinking salary cap, the loaded free agency class of 2010, and the pathetic free agency class of 2011, there will be some surprises, and a $6.6M contract would be valuable. At any rate, I agree completely with the sentiments that the potential value of his contract wasn't worth keeping Watson around.

Vince :I’m also not sure about Atkins getting bought out. It’s only an extra $2M or so if I recall to keep him for the year, and are you really ready to spend 82 games with Weaver — who’s not a natural point — and Livingston — who never played close to 82 games even before he destroyed his knee — responsible for ~15 minutes a game at the 1?

I agree completely. I'm as big a fan of Livingston's progress as the next guy, but they didn't even want to play him in back to back games in summer league. I hardly think he's physically ready to be a full time backup. This is all regardless of whether or not you think he has the chops to do the job talent-wise.

Yeah, I guess when you think about it, the real problem is that we simply have too much talent that needs to develop on this team. Mullens, White, Weaver are definitely part of the future. You really can't get much value for a expiring contract in the 6-7 mil range (not this year at least) unless you want Vince Carter, which I for one DON'T. And then we're going to have to make room for next years draft class...when you consider the fact that Earl was a team cancer and a malcontent, and also that he SUCKED, I think that Sam Presti probably took exactly the right course of action. ...Again.

@GarThe problem with the "expiring contract" is that it's only valuable if you're taking a longer contract back. So the value of Watson's deal is/was that we could conceivably get a more talented, similarly-paid player in return (or a higher-paid player, since we have the cap space) but that player is going to be a better player with a longer deal (for example, the aborted Tyson Chandler trade for Smith/Rose's expiring contracts).

Meanwhile, Royce is writing 1,000 words about our roster logjam this year AND we have potentially two lottery picks coming next year, plus cap space for next summer, some of which we would lose if we traded for a player locked up through 2012. So, basically, to make a deal with Watson's contract, you'd have to find a guy who made in the range of $6-8M and was an immediate and long-term upgrade over the current roster. Those guys don't get traded, especially not this year. The only other option would be to use the expiring deal, our cap space, and some pieces to make a deal for someone like Vince Carter -- a top-tier guy with a mega-contract -- and Presti doesn't seem interested in that.

@GarFor one, I don't think the market was there for a guy like Watson. Sure he's a serviceable backup point guard and his expiring contract was nice, but I don't know if what OKC could get in return was worth it.

Plus, as we know Presti is very committed to player development, so having that extra roster spot lets one of the young guys have a chance to make the squad. Watson was dead weight on the bench. He was likely going to be behind Livingston anyway, so he wouldn't have seen much time and what trade value he had would have been slashed. I think it's better to give Weaver or Ibaka a chance to be on the roster than to hope you could get something for Watson's deal. But that's me.

I think the reason we bought out Watson was because they felt like he was becoming a "cancer" in the locker room. And that is the last thing Presti wants. So its better to get rid of him before training camp starts. If he was professional about his situation I think that we would have waited til the deadline. But that wasnt the case so you deal with the issue immediatly.

I just don't get why an open roster spot for one of the guys listed above is more valuable than having a veteran PG in Watson, a guy with a 6.6 mil contract we could have dealt at the trade deadline to a team looking for cap room in 2010. If we pick up another player before the season I will understand.

Why is Wilkins automatically on the active roster? Can't he take the Robert Swift spot if he don't buy him out? I'd rather see him in the inactive spot along with (for example) Mullens and Vaden, so the latter two can play in Tulsa while Wilkins gets almost $4 million for sitting next to the ice bucket in a fancy suit.

I'm also not sure about Atkins getting bought out. It's only an extra $2M or so if I recall to keep him for the year, and are you really ready to spend 82 games with Weaver -- who's not a natural point -- and Livingston -- who never played close to 82 games even before he destroyed his knee -- responsible for ~15 minutes a game at the 1? I know Atkins was HORRENDOUS last season but I think it's a roll of the dice to face a full season with only Livingston and Weaver behind Russ.

I think your odds are pretty good Royce. I think you'll see Mullens and Vaden in Tulsa, with Wilkins inactive. If we buyout Wilkins and/or Atkins, we might bring Mullens up for some run with the big boys.

The current Portland team is mostly thru the draft, except for the backbone pieces of starting PG and starting C. I think those specific exceptions are a pretty important part of the success that might get overlooked by some.

The PG exception are the biggest difference between the Blazers and the Thunder roster designs, right now. Watson got last year to be a Steve Blake level piece but it didn't really work out.

If Mullens is considered core and slated for a rapid rise and is not just a roll of the dice that may or may not be the future then that would be another key difference over what the Blazers are doing right now, though they too are looking at or planning a shift to Oden, whether it will be equal to the current level of success with Joel P. or a bigger success or not time will tell. His defense, as in the case with most young bigs, had some major issues.

Why is everyone so down on Watson? He wasn't that bad, not compared to Atkins or Wilkins, I would argue that he was better/ would have been better this season than Livingston, thats why it was so easy for him to have a deal lined up.

Also, the thunder are going to be one of the youngest teams ever, especially if they don't resign mason and buyout atkins. Has any team every done something like this, where they build almost completely through the draft? The Spurs drafted their big 3 but they still play the FA market, the thunder are looking more and more like the nba version of the steelers, home grown, blue collar, high character guys.

@nickThey were dying for Livingston to step up and play like a starter. That's why they drafted him. He never did and his play never warranted a starting role over Cassell even though he had more than enough opportunities. I was a big Livingston fan but the fact is he was already a disappointment pre-injury, so I don't have high hopes for him post-injury.

Good analysis Royce. I think regarding Devon Hardin, what is blocking his way to the big club is of course the numbers thing, and also Nick Collison.

By the end of the season, Scotty had given Big Red his chance and had settled on the fact that Colly was a better backup to Krstic than Petro or Swift or Sene. I think it's likely that Mullins would also fall to third Center behind Colly, at least for most of this season unless he really impresses (which from what I saw at Vegas and Orlando is a few years off).

So Nick will see some minutes at the 5 and 4, with Green and D.J. and Ibaka getting the rest of the big man minutes with Krstic. Any scraps would probably go to Mullins.

And FWIW, I am good with Livingston as the backup 1. He's a better option than Watson or Atkins, and Weaver isn't ready to be a number 2 pg.

Compared to that previous best season in 06-07, last season he had no 3s and got widely beaten at PG in his first minuteshttp://www.82games.com/0809/08OKC2.HTM#byposHis assists were about half. The turnovers were too. If he can getting the passing back without raising the turns then ok he'll at least be alright on offense. But defense? Got to see better. Giving up 23 PER is the same as on average your opponents looking like Tony Parker, arguably the second best PG in the league, every night.

If healthy Livingston will have some good games but last season he was healthy he had the 11th worst (surprise to use this? no) adjusted +/- of guys who played 20+ minutes a game. http://www.82games.com/ilardi1.htmI'll root for him but I think he may be a bit overrated as an overall talent including defense.

@Gartry being a star point guard behind sam cassel. not gonna happen, that guy absolutely dominates any team he's on by sheer force of personality. and that's a good thing, just not for livingston's stardom.that being said, i agree that he wasn't "the next magic" as some touted him to be. my point was more that he clearly had talent. and i think that he's back on the road to being a very good player, though not a star. and i think that's pretty good for a backup.and as for him not fitting with westbrook, i don't see that. i don't think a team can have enough unselfish, pass-first players with great size and athleticism. i'd much rather have a good player that overlaps some of russ's skillset than go find someone who "fits"- that's like drafting for need over talent, which generally does not go well (ask portland twice: oden and bowie).

I actually think that, while Livingston has great talent, he and Westbrook don't particularly complement each other. Westbrook is meant to be a strong defender and slasher, and hopefully a solid decision maker as time goes on. Livinston is a pass-first PG who doesn't really shoot well from outside. As it is, they have overlapping skillsets. If Westbrook improves his passing and decision making as much as we hope, then Livingston's contribution gives us nothing different at all.

I think the plan is to grow Livingston's value as a talented player, then use him in a trade for a more useful backup or a solid veteran. He'd be a great backup for a team like the Clippers or Wizards, teams with shoot first, rangy PGs who could use a more team oriented guy in spurts.

Clark Matthews :The reason Swift signed so late is that the Thunder gave him a “qualifying offer” to retain his rights as a restricted free agent. Swift had the Summer to look for a better deal (shocker: none came). So he signed a little before training camp with the mindset that he would use his contract year to get a good offer when he became an unrestricted free agent. That’s why he was such a star last season.

Pretty sure on the above except, of course, both Atkins & Wilkins are living on borrowed time. Neither guy will be with the team after the February trade deadline. In fact, Atkins is almost for sure gone the day before his salary guarantee kicks in.

Watson was let go because he wasn't part of the plan, potential existed for him causing disruption in his contract year, professional courtesy, his agent already lined up a deal with Pacers that cuts a little off our salary obligation and most importantly his expiring contract will not be needed at next February's trade deadline due to the cap space Presti already has accumulated.

The nice words publicly said about Mason maybe coming back were just that. There is zero chance of him getting another contract. Hopefully Cowboy gets a vet min deal with the Bucks or someone else.

Presti likes to keep no more than 14 guys on contract in case of an imbalanced trade opportunity and besides, how valuable is a fifteen guy? Not. Couple that with the fact that Vaden sucked in both Orlando & Las Vegas and his odds of having a contract come November aren't so good.

Wilkins is nothing more than an expiring that will be kept around until the trade deadline in case some team has a financial meltdown & Mr Opportunistic (eg Presti) is there to take advantage with his cap space, extra picks & Wilkins' expiring contract.

Devon Hadin is probably back to Europe this year again.

I actually think this roster has a chance of winning half their games this season.

@Crowreally? i suppose i don't have much to back this up, but i think livingston is about as good as backup point guards get. he was supposed to be a star before he got hurt, and he appears to be getting back to that point athletically at least

The reason Swift signed so late is that the Thunder gave him a "qualifying offer" to retain his rights as a restricted free agent. Swift had the Summer to look for a better deal (shocker: none came). So he signed a little before training camp with the mindset that he would use his contract year to get a good offer when he became an unrestricted free agent. That's why he was such a star last season.

With the periodic issues with Westbrook's decision-making, outside shooting and finishing I don't really see Livingston or Weaver as a complete enough antidote / good alternative... at PG. If they stay as is I think they lose a fair number of games because of backup PG weakness.

Am I correct that a free agent remains on our roster until he either signs with another team or the date that the contract actually expires? I notice that Swift, Rose and Mason are still listed on the roster. I'm not sure about Malik or Desmond, but the press release last year that the Thunder had signed Swift on or about September 12.

Of course, training camps can't open until 30 days before the season opener, so either way, he'll be officially gone before it matter.

It would only make sense to buy out Atkins. He contributed nothing on the floor last year. I know he's a veteran and gives that presence, but is it worth a roster spot? I'm sure that Livingston is a much, much better option for us at backup point. Like you've said Royce, he slows the game down for us and gives us a different kind of play. That's a great option to have as our players are (mostly- I'm still reminding myself that Swift is really gone) extremely versatile.

@Clark MatthewsDuring an NBA player’s first two seasons in the league (regardless of his age when he entered the league), his team will be permitted to assign him to a team in the NBA Development League. A player can be assigned to the NBADL up to three times per season (that's why Presti had to stop). The player will continue to be paid his NBA salary and will continue to be included on his NBA team’s roster (on the inactive list) while playing in the NBADL.

This is the last year Weaver and White can see time in the D-League. So White and Weaver can be sent and recalled three times this year as well, but that's it.

I don't think Vaden even gets a contract. At best, he's probably going to get an invite to play for the 66ers as a way to stay with the organization. Otherwise, he will have to hope his sub-40% three point shooting is coveted elsewhere.

One thing you didn't mention is that teams are limited on how many times they can assign a player to their D-League affiliate. Remember how Presti was jerking (probably a poor word choice but I'm going to leave it) D.J. back and forth at the end of last season so he could practice with the big club? Eventually, he had to stop because he ran out of options for D.J. I'm not sure if the rules allow that Presti gets a new set of options this season or if D.J. is done with D-League.

Trackbacks

[…] Breaking down the somewhat complicated Thunder roster situation | Daily Thunder.com – Where Th…Per NBA rules, teams can have 12 players on its active roster, meaning 12 guys that are dressed and ready to play. You can have up to 15 players on the team, as that’s a provisional for players that are injured, but any man over 12 isn’t allowed to be in uniform and is deemed inactive. This is also known as the Robert Swift Rule (not really, but it should be). […]